header-logo header-logo

Procedural nightmares

15 November 2018 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7817 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

​Dominic Regan provides some answers to the civil procedure worries keeping you up at night

Every October, I visit six cities and deliver a lengthy annual review of civil procedure. This year, the same three concerns were raised at every venue. What follows are my answers to those questions.

How do I ensure that Pt 36 doesn’t trip me up?

It is astonishing to think that so far this year we have had over a dozen reported decisions on the measure, five from the Court of Appeal, and another High Court judgment is imminent.

First things first: one must abide by the requirements of the provision. The safest way to make a compliant offer is by using the court form of offer, the N242A. Use of the form is not mandatory, but the benefit is that it helpfully prompts the offeror as to what is required, such as a relevant period of at least 21 days. Do not seek to adjust the measures enshrined in the Rule.

The deadly trap within Pt 36 is that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll